OCR Text |
Show BRIDE OBSCURES THE GROOM Louisiana Court Has Solemnly Held That the Man Does Not Attract . Any Attention, It Is at last judicially determined, that tho groom nt n wedding Is incrctf n necessary Incident, nccessory, 'or' piece of furniture. Tho brldo Is tho wholo enst. In n divorce action In Loulslnnn, In which 'ilefendnnt denied ho wns the man who luiil married plaintiff, and his Identity with the bridegroom was In issue, tho court snys : "Tho only "evidence Introduced by tho defendant In support of his denial de-nial that It wns ho who married plain-tiff plain-tiff In Indianapolis on October 0, 1911, wns tho testimony of tho Pro-bnto Pro-bnto Judge who performed tho ceremony cere-mony nnd thnt of tho proprietor of the. Impcrfnl hotel. Tho Probate Judgo and the proprietor of tho Imperial lintel both testified that they had Identified Iden-tified the plaintiff ns soon ns sho had spoken tothem when they stepped off the train In New Orleans; nnd from thnt circumstance, counsel for defendant nrguo that tho Probate Judgo nnd tho proprlotor of the hotel would surely have been nblo to Identify Identi-fy tho defendant If he wero tho Individual In-dividual to whom plaintiff wns mnt rlod by tho Judgo In presence of the hotel proprietor. Wo do not think so. With duo respect for his honor, the Probnto Judge, and for tho proprietor of tho Imperial hotel, It may be thnt tho brldo nttrncted more nttcntlon thnn tho groom." From West's |